Legal analyst and former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman warned that there is “blood in the water” in the developing Fani Willis-Nathan Wade investigation, despite his belief that their relationship presents “no conflict” to Willis’ case against Donald Trump.
While he is still the leading candidate for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, Trump is also facing four criminal indictments at the state and federal levels, adding up to 91 criminal charges that are the first ever leveled against a former president. Among those indictments is one from Fulton County, Georgia, where an investigation led by District Attorney Willis has charged Trump and others with racketeering over allegations that they attempted to interfere with the results of the 2020 presidential election in the state. Trump himself has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
One of Trump’s co-defendants, Michael Roman, filed a motion last month alleging that Willis was having a “personal relationship” with Wade “during the pendency” of the investigation into Trump. Roman’s motion alleges that Willis personally profited from the case against him, claiming Wade was paid in excess of $650,000 and that he used the earnings to pay for them to take vacations together.
In a filing from Friday, Willis acknowledged the past relationship with Wade, but denied that it presented any conflict of interest on her part, writing that “any personal relationship among members of the prosecution team does not amount to a disqualifying conflict of interest or otherwise harm a criminal defendant.”
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is seen delivering a criminal indictment against Donald Trump. Legal analyst Harry Litman on Friday warned that there could be “blood in the water” with regard to Willis’s relationship… Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is seen delivering a criminal indictment against Donald Trump. Legal analyst Harry Litman on Friday warned that there could be “blood in the water” with regard to Willis’s relationship with attorney Nathan Wade, which Trump’s team has decried as improper and called for her removal.
Joe Raedle/Getty Images
“Defendants have done nothing to establish an actual conflict of interest, nor have they shown that, in the handling of the case, District Attorney Willis or Special Prosecutor Wade have acted out of any personal or financial motivation,” the filing reads, later adding that, “District Attorney Willis has no financial conflict of interest that constitutes a legal basis for disqualification.”
During a Friday appearance on MSNBC‘s All In with Chris Hayes, Litman, who previously served as a U.S. attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania and deputy assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice (DOJ) during the Clinton administration, discussed recent developments in Trump’s various criminal trials.
During the discussion, Litman touched on the situation with Willis, stating that while he believes her relationship with Wade did not present any conflict, there is still now “blood in the water” surrounding the case.
“It’s 100 percent true under Georgia law, she needed to do it. The law of these kinds of scandals is to get it all out early,” he explained. “The thing is, by now, there’s sort of blood in the water. You have one of these phoney baloney special investigative commissions in Georgia, none other than [House Judiciary Chair] Jim Jordan subpoenaed her today. [Judge Scott] McAfee’s going to have a hearing on the 15th and oddly, even before this, he styled it an ‘evidentiary hearing.’ So what sort of evidence is it going to take? It could be a bit of a circus.”
Newsweek reached out to Willis’s office via email for comment on Saturday.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Amid tensions over the use of razor wire on the U.S.-Mexico border in Texas, the state’s Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick responded to a question about a possible “civil war” during an interview on Sunday.
Tension between federal and state units in Texas remains after President Joe Biden‘s administration secured a significant win over Texas Governor Greg Abbott on Monday after the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to allow the temporary removal of razor wire along the southern border while litigation over the issue proceeds. The Court’s decision has sparked anger among Republicans who support the measures taken by Abbott and his administration to fight illegal immigration in the state. Tensions over the measures escalated as the federal government raised environmental and humanitarian concerns about the deterrent.
Meanwhile, Abbott and his administration have held firm on their stance to continue the razor wire policy as the Republican governor claims that Texas has a constitutional right to self-defense and his state was “acting on that authority, as well as state law, to secure the Texas border” by using the razor wire.
In an interview on Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures with host Maria Bartiromo, Patrick said that Texas does not want a confrontation with the Biden administration. However, when asked by Bartiromo whether this situation will “turn into a civil war,” Patrick responded by reiterating that Texas has a constitutional right.
“We believe constitutionally we are right, we have a right to defend our citizens, we have a right to defend this country and we are just doing our job. These young women and men who serve our National Guard and our DPS these are the best of the best why would he want to send anyone down to confront them,” he said.
Newsweek has reached out to Patrick’s office and the White House via email for comment.
Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick addresses the media on Friday in Eagle Pass, Texas. Amid tensions over the use of razor wire on the U.S.-Mexico border in Texas, Patrick responded to a question about a… Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick addresses the media on Friday in Eagle Pass, Texas. Amid tensions over the use of razor wire on the U.S.-Mexico border in Texas, Patrick responded to a question about a possible “civil war” during an interview on Sunday.
Patrick previously responded to this possibility by stating it would be a mistake.
“The biggest mistake the Biden administration could make would be confronting law enforcement or our military, our National Guard at our border, at this park, when we are actually doing the job that the American people want,” Patrick told Laura Ingraham on Fox News on Friday.
Concerns over a confrontation came after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) asked Texas to stop preventing federal Border Patrol agents access to Eagle Pass’ Shelby Park. A letter from the DHS to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton last week demanded full access to the park by Friday, however, Paxton rejected the request.
Biden has signaled that he’s open to “massive changes” on border policy, asking Congress to embrace a bipartisan Senate deal that would pair border enforcement measures with aid to Ukraine to help in its ongoing war with Russia. In addition, he stated on Saturday at a political event in South Carolina that he would be willing to close the U.S.-Mexico border if lawmakers would only send him a bill to sign.
Newswise — MSU has a satellite uplink/LTN TV studio and Comrex line for radio interviews upon request.
EAST LANSING, Mich. – The 2024 presidential election is underway with the first contests being Iowa and New Hampshire. While Iowa holds caucuses, New Hampshire holds an open primary — illustrating that the way states assign their delegates isn’t always the same. For this election, Michigan’s contests are now sooner, on Feb. 27 and March 2 — with Michigan Republicans now holding both a primary and caucus. So, how does it all work?
How do the presidential primaries work for Republicans and Democrats?
Officially, Democrats and Republicans select their nominees at national conventions this summer. The presidential nomination process evolved out of reforms to the delegate selection process for those conventions, which now means delegates are overwhelmingly selected based on presidential primary results. From the voter’s perspective, it often looks like any other election where you select your preferred candidate. But the parties still have power to coordinate their rules and selection procedures. That means there are still party differences, such as which states are allowed to go earlier in the process and whether the state winner gets all of the delegates from that state. Usually, the winner is determined when all other candidates drop out after it becomes infeasible for them to gain enough delegates to win. Officially, the winner needs to accumulate a majority of delegates. But the winners will likely be clear after most states vote early in the process.
How does a caucus work?
A caucus is a party meeting that can include the selection of delegates. The Iowa caucuses evolved out of a three-round process for selecting delegates to county conventions to select delegates to the state convention, who select delegates to the national convention. Caucuses now play a smaller role in the process, with most delegates selected by primaries. How delegates are awarded differs by state.
How is a general primary different from a caucus and why does format vary by state?
A primary is a normal election to select a party nominee, but the presidential primaries officially select delegates affiliated with the candidates. To organize a primary for delegate selection, a state party has to coordinate with the rules of their state and their national party. States often like to go early in the process (while several candidates are still in the race and they might influence other states), but the national parties set the rules on whether those voting early are selecting delegates to the national convention. This year, the Democratic Party approved Michigan moving earlier in the process and the Michigan Legislature (controlled by Democrats) moved our election date earlier in the process. But there is not really a contest on the Democratic side. Republicans had to adapt to this process because their national party did not approve a move earlier in the process.
Why do Michigan Republicans have a hybrid caucus this election and how does it work?
Michigan Republicans are trying to adapt to their national party rules and the state government-held election (coordinated by Democrats). There are also parts of the party that would like voters to have less of a role in nominating candidates compared to those more involved in party organizing and activism. The idea behind a hybrid system is to have a meaningful election where voters have a role in selecting the nominee, but official delegate selection can still conform to national rules and enable party activists to have a role in the process.
What are the important dates in Michigan’s voting process?
Both parties will hold their primaries on Tuesday, Feb. 27 and the Republicans will have their caucus on Saturday, March 2, which awards most of the party’s delegates. Michigan voters who want to participate must ensure they are registered for the primary by Monday, Feb. 12. Absentee ballots requested by mail must be done so by Friday, Feb. 23. It is also important to know that Michigan now has early in-person voting, which communities must start by Saturday, Feb. 17.
Will Michigan’s earlier primary date have a significant effect on the presidential race?
On the Democratic side, there is not much of a race against the incumbent president. But Michigan has an opportunity to set the terms for future elections, showing that it can become engaged, with diverse interests, and earn the right to vote early in the process in 2028. On the Republican side, it will depend on whether candidates other than Donald Trump remain in the process and how viable they are by the time Michiganders vote. Since Michigan does not have party registration, voters will be able to participate in the primary of their choice, which has provided an incentive for individuals to vote in the contest that presents the most uncertainty.
What are some fun facts about previous presidential primaries?
Barak Obama was not on the primary ballot in 2008 because Michigan jumped in line, holding a primary before national party rules allowed it on the Democratic side. Eventually, the delegates were still seated — but only after it was clear that they would not put Hillary Clinton over Obama.
In 2016, Bernie Sanders unexpectedly defeated Hillary Clinton in the Michigan primary, prolonging the Democratic contest, in part because many Democratic-leaning voters decided to vote in the Republican contest.
John McCain won the 2000 Michigan Republican primary over George W. Bush — Michigan was one of only seven states where McCain won over Bush.
###
Michigan State University has been advancing the common good with uncommon will for more than 165 years. One of the world’s leading public research universities, MSU pushes the boundaries of discovery to make a better, safer, healthier world for all while providing life-changing opportunities to a diverse and inclusive academic community through more than 400 programs of study in 17 degree-granting colleges.
Former President Donald Trump‘s comments suggesting the United States should not help Taiwan in the event of an invasion from China has sparked a new wave of anger and concern on social media.
Trump, who is the leading favorite to secure the GOP nomination for president after winning the Iowa caucus on Monday, sat for an interview on Fox News‘ Sunday Morning Futures With Maria Bartiromo where he was asked if, under a hypothetical second Trump presidency, the U.S. would protect Taiwan from Chinese aggression even if it meant going to war with China. China claims Taiwan as part of its territory, but the Communist Party leadership has never controlled the self-ruled island in its seven decades in power in Beijing. The former president declined to give a firm answer, but did suggest discontent with Taiwan for allegedly taking semiconductor business away from the U.S.
“Taiwan did take all of our chip business,” Trump said. “We used to make all of our own chips, now they’re made in Taiwan, 90 percent of [them]…Remember this, Taiwan took, smart, brilliant, they took our business away.”
Newsweek reached out to Trump’s office via email for comment.
Former President Donald Trump is seen in 2022. Trump’s recent comments about Taiwan have sparked a wave of anger and concern on social media. Joe Raedle/Getty Images
On X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, numerous users interpreted Trump’s remarks as an indication that, as president, he would not have the U.S. come to Taiwan’s aid, sparking a wave of inflamed reactions. Some questioned his claims about Taiwan’s chip business, while others accused him of hypocrisy in the face of his typical stances on China since he has opposed the nation’s global economic and political influence, and claims that he stood up to it have long been some of his key talking points.
“Trump accuses his opponents of being weak on China and then he essentially openly gives China a green light to invade Taiwan without US retaliation, if he were to be elected,” policy expert Ed Tarnowski wrote in a post. “This is not serious policymaking!”
“Absolute idiocy,” Heath Mayo, a conservative lawyer and founder of the anti-Trump nonprofit Principles First, wrote in a post. “If Trump is elected, Taiwan is gone and so is a significant chunk of our semiconductor capacity. Not only is Trump unfit for the office, he’s just plain wrong on so many things like this.”
“No-one should be surprised that Biden is more committed to Taiwan than Trump,” Jordan Schneider, creator of the China Talk newsletter and podcast, wrote.
“Sorry, Donald Trump. Taiwan did not steal the US chip business,” Bonnie Glaser, managing director of the Indo-Pacific program for the German Marshall Fund of the U.S., wrote. “Taipei beware.”
In an interview with NBC News from September, Trump took a similar stance on the issue, stating that he would not say what his position on the matter would be, but also stated that sending U.S. troops to Taiwan would not be “off the table.”
While recently stating that the U.S. does not support an independent Taiwan, President Joe Biden has also recently urged China not to interfere with Taiwanese matters, most notably its recent elections. Biden has also in the past pledged U.S. support of Taiwan in the event of an invasion from China. Trump’s noncommittal response also run counter to the feelings of some in his own party, with a group of 22 GOP senators urging Biden in November to stand firm in support of Taiwan amid a visit with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Legal experts are said to be planning to push back against Donald Trump‘s potential efforts at a broad military takeover in the event that he is reelected in November, according to a new report.
The former president is among the field of candidates seeking the 2024 GOP presidential nomination as part of his bid to retake the White House. National polling averages have consistently suggested that he leads the pack by a wide margin, regularly giving him around or above 50 percent support from likely Republican voters.
In a report published on Sunday, NBC News found that “a loose-knit network of public interest groups and lawmakers is quietly devising plans to try to foil any efforts to expand presidential power,” amid recent comments and moves from Trump indicating his intention to pursue his political agenda if reelected this year.
In November 2023, The Washington Post published a report outlining Trump’s alleged plans to invoke the Insurrection Act on the very first day of his hypothetical second term in the White House, allowing him to use military force to quash protests against his presidency. During the last months of his presidency, Trump was reportedly told by lawyer Jeffrey Clark that the Insurrection Act could be used to shut down protests if he had attempted to remain in office despite losing to Joe Biden in the 2020 election.
Former President Donald Trump attends a military academy graduation in June 2020. A new report has revealed a developing plan among legal experts to combat Trump’s potential military takeover if reelected this year. David Dee Delgado/Getty Images
Meanwhile, during a town hall event hosted by Fox News host Sean Hannity last month, Hannity pressed Trump to pledge that he would never “abuse power as retribution against anybody,” as had been suggested in recent reports, if he’s reelected. In response, Trump suggested that he would only behave in such a way on the first day of his hypothetical second term.
“Except for day one,” Trump said. “No, no, no, other than day one. We’re closing the border and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator.” His drilling comment was a reference to his vow to expand oil drilling in the U.S.
Speaking with NBC News, Mary McCord, executive director of the Institution for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law and participant in this initiative, said that they are preparing to bring any number of lawsuits against the former president depending on the actions he might take if reelected.
“We’re already starting to put together a team to think through the most damaging types of things that he [Trump] might do so that we’re ready to bring lawsuits if we have to,” McCord said.
The group’s plan for the moment, according to the report, is to identify and connect like-minded individuals and organizations who will be able to confront Trump’s potential overreach “from day one.”
The report also mentioned participants “combing through policy papers being crafted for a future conservative administration,” likely referring to the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025,” a plan being crafted in the event of a Republican presidential victory this year to greatly expand the powers afforded to the executive branch of the U.S. government.
Political analyst and historian Julian Zelizer previously told Newsweek that Trump allies could “go very far” with the ideas being put forward by the project, which says that Article II of the U.S. Constitution makes it “abundantly clear” that the executive branch’s powers are solely invested in the president.
Newsweek reached out to Trump’s office via email for comment.
While Trump is heavily favored to once again clinch the GOP presidential nomination, the outlook for the general election remains less clear-cut. While news cycles have been recently dominated by coverage of President Joe Biden’s troubled approval ratings, polls so far have shown that he and Trump are neck-and-neck in a hypothetical November rematch, with some giving Biden the edge and some skewing for Trump.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
BRUSSELS — One of Europe’s most senior politicians recounted how former U.S. President Donald Trump privately warned that America would not come to the EU’s aid if it was attacked militarily.
“You need to understand that if Europe is under attack we will never come to help you and to support you,” Trump told European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in 2020, according to French European Commissioner Thierry Breton, who was also present at a meeting at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
“By the way, NATO is dead, and we will leave, we will quit NATO,” Trump also said, according to Breton. “And he added, ‘and by the way, you owe me $400 billion, because you didn’t pay, you Germans, what you had to pay for defense,’” Breton said about the tense meeting, where the EU’s then-trade chief Phil Hogan was also present.
Breton told the anecdote at an event in the European Parliament in Brussels on Tuesday, just days before the Republican Party holds its January 15 caucus in Iowa, the opening contest in Trump’s bid to win the Republican nomination for a run at returning to the White House. Party members will cast their votes for candidates including Trump, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, who both trail way behind the ex-president in opinion polls.
Brussels is rife with fear about the possibility Trump will return to the U.S. presidency.
As the commissioner in charge of the EU’s industrial policy and defense agenda, Breton has pushed for the EU to boost its own self-defense capabilities amid Russia’s war in Ukraine, and on Tuesday floated a €100 billion fund to ramp up arms production in the bloc.
“That was a big wake-up call and he may come back,” Breton said about Trump. “So now more than ever, we know that we are on our own, of course. We are a member of NATO, almost all of us, of course we have allies, but we have no other options but to increase drastically this pillar in order to be ready [for] whatever happens.”
Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson faced backlash from his conservative colleagues on Sunday after announcing that congressional leaders had reached a tentative agreement to fund the government in 2024.
Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, was appointed the 56th speaker of the House of Representatives in October 2023 after Kevin McCarthy was ousted from the position the same month for negotiating with Democrats to avoid a government shutdown.
Senate and House leaders announced a 2024 budget deal of nearly $1.66 trillion on Sunday. Despite the agreement, it’s unclear whether Congress will be able to pass it into law in time to avert a partial government shutdown as the deadline looms less than two weeks away.
In a letter that Johnson sent to his Congressional colleagues on Sunday obtained by Newsweek, the speaker said that after weeks of debate, “we have secured hard-fought concessions” to allow the Appropriations Committee to finally begin negotiating and completing the annual appropriations bills. Johnson’s letter said the agreement includes $886 billion for defense and $704 billion for nondefense.
The U.S. Capitol is shown in Washington, DC. The inset shows House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, is facing Conservative criticism after Senate and House leaders struck a deal on 2024 government funding on Sunday. Stefan Zaklin, Chip Somodevilla/Getty
“The agreement today achieves key modifications to the June framework that will secure more than $16 billion in additional spending cuts to offset the discretionary spending levels,” the speaker said in the letter.
Despite the cuts highlighted by Johnson, critics argue that the agreement’s nearly $1.66 trillion price tag brings the spending in line with the deal struck last year between Democratic President Joe Biden and McCarthy that led to the former speaker’s removal.
Johnson noted in his letter that the deal’s “spending levels will not satisfy everyone” because the agreement didn’t cut as much as some Republicans had been demanding. However, the speaker said the deal provides Congress a way to “move the process forward” and “reprioritize funding within the topline towards conservative objectives.”
News of Johnson’s deal on Sunday sparked immediate conservative outrage, with the House Freedom Caucus blasting the agreement as a “total failure.”
While Johnson, in the letter to his Congressional colleagues, said the topline spending total was roughly $1.59 trillion, Democrats and critics noted that the true figure was higher. The House Freedom Caucus, which opposes the agreement, said the “true total programmatic spending level is $1.658 trillion — not $1.59 trillion.”
“To call this ‘unsustainable’ is an understatement,” The House Freedom Caucus said in the statement. “It is a fiscal calamity. Unfortunately, members of the House and Senate have done little to force a course correction from this calamity. Indeed, many have been party to it. Worse yet, we are extremely troubled that House Republican leadership is considering an agreement with Democrats to spend even higher than the modest $1.59 trillion statutory cap set six months ago by the Fiscal Responsibility Act and to obscure the actual spending numbers with more shady side deals and accounting tricks. This is totally unacceptable.”
It’s even worse than we thought.
Don’t believe the spin. Once you break through typical Washington math, the true total programmatic spending level is $1.658 trillion — not $1.59 trillion.
Representative Chip Roy, a Texas Republican, slammed the agreement’s terms as “terrible” in a post on X.
“A $1659 topline in spending is terrible & gives away the leverage accomplished in the (already not great) caps deal,” Roy said in the post. “We’ll wait to see if we get meaningful policy riders… but 1) the NDAA was not a good preview, & 2) as usual, we keep spending more money we don’t have.”
Newsweek reached out via email on Sunday to Roy’s office for comment.
Representative Matt Rosendale, a Montana Republican, also took to X to blast the deal, saying in a statement that the agreement “does nothing to increase border security, continues woke and wasteful spending by the Biden administration, and rubber stamps the policies of the Radical Left.”
“Unfortunately there are only microscopic concessions made by the D.C. Cartel in this new spending ‘deal’ compared to the hundreds of billions it is costing Americans from illegals crossing our border and the imminent national security threat it presents #ShutDownTheBorder,” Rosendale said on X.
Taylor Haulsee, a spokesperson for Johnson’s office, told Newsweek in an email that the agreement reached on Sunday was $30 billion less than what the Senate was working on. Haulsee also said that the deal “represents the first cut to non-defense discretionary spending in years and is the best spending deal for the GOP in a decade.”
Senator Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, also a New York Democrat, issued a joint statement on the agreement saying that it includes funding for “key domestic priorities.”
“By securing the $772.7 billion for nondefense discretionary funding, we can protect key domestic priorities like veterans benefits, health care and nutrition assistance from the draconian cuts sought by right-wing extremists,” the Democrats wrote.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
President Joe Biden has clashed with White House staffers about going off-script during some speeches, according to a new report.
Biden has faced backlash over a number of remarks in recent months over topics such as the war between Israel and Hamas, and Chinese President Xi Jinping. An article published by Reuters on Tuesday outlined how some of the remarks created a headache for White House staffers who have sought to reign him in.
The report comes as Biden continues his reelection bid despite concerns from some Democrats about his age and electability, as many polls show him trailing former President Donald Trump in a head-to-head matchup. Biden remains the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, but Republicans have sought to use recent gaffes and other offhand remarks to draw into question whether he is the best candidate to lead the country for another four years.
The article highlighted that while Biden typically relies on teleprompters in his political speeches, he has gone off-script a few times in recent months, leading to confusion and challenges for his staffers.
President Joe Biden delivers remarks from the Roosevelt Room of the White House on December 6, 2023, in Washington, D.C. A new report said Biden’s off-script remarks during some speech have clashed with some White House staffers. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
“Biden’s open-mic disclosures are clashing with the White House system built to keep him on script,” the article reads. “The comments sometimes baffle, rankle, or worry his aides, who are forced to explain or contradict them later.”
The article noted that staffers sometimes “struggle to shift attention back to the administration’s message of the day” or explain why some of Biden’s comments appear to be “at odds with official U.S. policy.”
Newsweek reached out to the White House via email for comment.
The article pointed to two specific instances in which Biden’s remarks caused trouble for White House staff.
In December, Biden warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against the “indiscriminate bombing” of Palestinian civilians amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas. Biden has cast himself as a strong supporter of Israel, arguing it has a right to defend itself following Hamas’ October 7 attack. However, he has also cautioned the Israeli government to avoid civilian casualties.
Biden’s remarks sparked questions about the state of the relationship between the U.S. and Israel, though spokesperson John Kirby said Biden was simply voicing concern about civilian casualties.
The report also pointed to Biden referring to Xi, whose relationship with U.S. leaders has long been contentious, as a “dictator” during a press conference in November.
“Well, look. He’s a dictator in the sense that he’s a guy who rules a country that is a communist country, that’s based on a form of government totally different than ours,” Biden said.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Trump is currently contending with four criminal indictments at the state and federal levels, totaling 91 criminal charges in all. Among these cases is the federal one brought by the DOJ and Smith pertaining to Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, which ultimately led to the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Trump, the frontrunner in the 2024 GOP presidential primary, has maintained his innocence in the case and accused all of the cases against him of being attempts to undermine his political prospects.
The federal indictment for election interference also notably mentions six other alleged co-conspirators in Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. In a video posted to YouTube on Saturday, Kirschner, a former assistant U.S. attorney turned outspoken critic of the former president, told MSNBC contributor Brian Tyler Cohen on The Legal Breakdown that further indictments will “absolutely” be passed down onto these unnamed co-conspirators.
“We know that in the Trump indictment…there are six unindicted co-conspirators,” Kirschner said. “Now, they are listed, they are described, but they’re not named, but we basically know who they are…They do include people like Mark Meadows, and Rudy Giuliani, and Sidney Powell, and John Eastman, and Kenneth Chesebro.”
Former President Donald Trump is seen in a courthouse. Six unnamed co-conspirators of Trump are likely to be indicted by Department of Justice (DOJ) special counsel Jack Smith, according to former prosecutor and legal analyst Glenn Kirschner on Saturday. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images
He continued: “You have heard me say before, I am not a betting man, I am not a high roller, one dollar is my betting limit. I would bet the full buck on those six unindicted co-conspirators being indicted…[Smith] will absolutely, in my opinion, indict those six, though perhaps waiting for Donald Trump’s trial to run its course first.”
Newsweek reached out to other legal experts via email for comment.
Elsewhere in his Saturday appearance on Cohen’s YouTube channel, Kirschner addressed the possibility of Trump continuing to campaign for president even if he is convicted of criminal charges, which the former president has pledged to do and which the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit in most cases. Kirschner referred to this as a “weak spot” in the founding document.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Outgoing Senator Mitt Romney, a Utah Republican, warned on Sunday that Donald Trump might “impose his will” on the country if reelected president in 2024.
Romney has served as a senator for the Beehive State since 2019, previously served as the governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007, and received the Republican nomination for president in 2012. Over the last several years, Romney has emerged as a prominent critic of Trump and the overall direction of the GOP under his leadership.
Citing those frustrations, he recently announced his intention to retire from the Senate at the end of his current term, airing out yet more grievances with his colleagues on the way out. On Sunday, Romney appeared on NBC News’ Meet the Press where he warned that Trump’s past and current behaviors present a grim forecast for his potential reelection, as opposed to anything he might say at rallies.
“I think we agree that we have looked at his behavior, and his behavior suggests that this is a person who will impose his will, if he can, on the judicial system, on the legislative branch, on the entire nation. When he called people to come to Washington, D.C., on January 6, that was not a random date. That was the date when peaceful transition of power was to occur. He called that on purpose. There’s no question he has authoritarian rulings and interests and notions which he will try and impose.”
Newsweek reached out to Trump’s team via email for comment.
Senator Mitt Romney, a Utah Republican, is seen. Romney on Sunday suggested that Trump will try to “impose his will” on the country if given the opportunity. Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Trump is currently the leading candidate for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination as he seeks to retake the White House. National polling averages have consistently given him near or over 50 percent support from likely Republican voters, while his closest rivals, like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and former United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley, have struggled to maintain double-digit support.
During Romney’s Sunday appearance, host Kristen Welker pressed him for a reaction to Trump’s recent claim that he would be a “dictator” on “day one” of his second term if reelected. While Trump did subsequently attempt to downplay the comment, for many, it lined up with recent reports indicating his alleged plans to install loyalists throughout the federal government and conduct mass deportations, among other things.
“Donald Trump is kind of a human gumball machine,” Romney said. “A thought or a notion comes in and it comes out of his mouth. There’s not a lot of filter that goes on…He just says whatever. I don’t attach an enormous amount of impact to the particular words that come out and try to evaluate each one. I do think you can look at his record as president and in particular the last months of his presidency and say this is a dangerous approach, it’s an authoritarian approach. That gives me far more concern than him playing to the crowd as he did.”
Speaking at the New York Young Republican Club’s 111th annual gala on Saturday night, Trump repeated his claim that he wants to be dictator for “one day” if he reenters the White House.
“[Peter] Baker today in The New York Times, he said that I want to be a dictator. I didn’t say that, I said I want to be a dictator for one day,” the former president said. “And you know why I wanted to be a dictator? Because I want a wall, right? I want a wall and I want to drill, drill, drill.”
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
MyPillow founder and CEO Mike Lindell was the star of a Christmas parody on Jimmy Kimmel‘s late night talk show.
During Monday’s episode of Jimmy Kimmel Live,an actor playing the embattled CEO told audiences of his plans for Christmas which included waiting up all night in the hopes that “rightful president, Donald J. Trump” would attend the festivities.
The spoof was styled as an ad on Lindell TV and set in a cabin. The fake ad showed Lindell preparing for a “MyChristmas Spectacular” that included some well known faces including Representative Lauren Boebert and the “QAnon Shaman,” who rose to infamy during the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
(L) Mike Lindell speaks to the media at the 2023 Republican National Committee Winter Meeting in Dana Point, California, on January 27, 2023. (R) Jimmy Kimmel attends Metallica Presents: “The Helping Hands Concert” on December 16, 2022 in Los Angeles, California. Kimmel mocked Lindell on the most recent episode of his talk show. Patrick T. Fallon/Kevin Winter/Getty Images North America
There was even an appearance by “George Santos Clause” who was seen grilling a child about where in the house his parents kept cash and jewelry. Others making an appearance included the “Local County Whistleblowers Choir” and a “performance of the Nutcracker suite from the East Browersville Kill Shelter Players.”
Lindell was mercilessly mocked in the sketch for blindly holding out hope Trump would turn up to the party, but Kimmel breaks the news to him that the former president will not arrive.
“Gosh darn it, I’ve been such a fool. I’ve been waiting for a real president to come and now I realize I don’t need to, because Donald Trump has been here all along,” Lindell said while pointing to his and Kimmel’s hearts.
“Trump is more than a man who’s going to round up all the commies and deviant perverts. He lives in the hearts of all who still believe in the magic of Christmas.”
The skit then ended with Lindell spruiking products on his MyPillow website including a cartoon of Saint John the Baptist’s beheading.
“If you need a last minute Christmas gift use promo code, ‘happy b’day Jesus to get 80 percent off,” Lindell said.
The beleaguered businessman has had a rough 2023, including facing financial challenges over his vocal support for Trump and his belief the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him.
Lindell supported claims Trump was the rightful winner of the election and was sued for defamation by voting machine companies Smartmatic and Dominion Voting Systems.
As a result of the lawsuits, he pleaded with his supporters for financial donations to help him pay his legal fee. Lindell also said he spent $40 million of his own money trying to overturn the election, and several major retailers stopped stocking MyPillow over his views.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
General Charles Q. Brown Jr., the highest-ranking officer in the U.S. military, warned in a Sunday interview that everyone should be “worried” about a war with China.
Brown is the 21st and current chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, having taken over the role in October following the retirement of General Mark Milley. During an appearance on Fox News Sunday, Brown was asked by host Shannon Bream about growing concerns over a war between the United States and China, citing recent Reagan Institute polls finding that 51 percent of Americans view China as the biggest foreign threat to the country and 74 percent are concerned about such a conflict breaking out within five years.
In response, Brown first stressed the strength of the U.S. military, while also conceding that everyone should be concerned about such a conflict with China, specifically with regard to a possible invasion of Taiwan.
“The first thing I’d tell them is they ought to be very proud of their military, we’re ready for whatever comes our way,” Brown said. “At the same time, we want to be so ready that we don’t have a conflict. And you know, as we’re here, it says ‘peace through strength.’ Our strength that we demonstrate as a military will bring that peace.”
General Charles Q. Brown Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is seen. Brown on Sunday warned that everyone should be “worried” about a potential invasion of Taiwan by China. Alex Wong/Getty Images
He later added, on the subject of a possible Taiwan invasion: “The first thing I would say is we want to be, and we all should be, worried whether it’s going to happen or not. And [that is] part of the reason why deterrence is so important, so that conflict does not occur.”
In response to another poll finding concern from a majority of respondents that China will soon outpace the U.S. both militarily and economically, Brown said that it’s his “real role here and job…to actually make sure that…on the military side that doesn’t occur.”
Newsweek reached out to foreign defense experts via email for comment.
Taiwan has long been a contentious facet of relations between the U.S. and China. The latter’s official policy is that Taiwan is part of China as a whole, a claim that the Taiwanese government strongly dismisses. While the U.S. does not recognize Taiwan as its own country, the island territory is considered a key American ally in the Indo-Pacific region. President Joe Biden pledged in late 2022 that the U.S. army would deploy troops to help Taiwan in the event of an invasion from China.
“We are not moving—we’re not encouraging their being independent….That’s their decision,” Biden told 60 Minutes at the time, later stressing that the U.S. would provide military support, “if in fact there was an unprecedented attack.”
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Former President Donald Trump drew cheers at a rally on Saturday after touting his endorsement from a “representative of Black Lives Matter” (BLM), despite the activist’s disputed affiliation within the decentralized movement.
Trump is currently among the packed field of candidates seeking the GOP nomination for president in 2024. In nationwide polling averages, he has consistently led the crop of candidates by significant margins, regularly garnering around 50 percent support from likely Republican voters, leading many to consider his nomination by the party next year inevitable.
Earlier this week, activist Mark Fisher appeared on Fox & Friends to discuss his endorsement of Trump, with the show touting him as a “BLM leader.” During his appearance, Fisher claimed that Trump has done “more for the Black community than any president I can think of in my lifetime” and decried the Democratic Party as “racist.”
BLM is a decentralized social movement focused on racism and other issues faced by Black Americans that has been more often associated with progressive politics, rather than the socially conservative policies embraced by Trump. While decentralized, the movement is represented by various prominent organizations at the national and state level, many of which have dismissed Fisher’s involvement with them and called his endorsement a “publicity stunt.”
Former President Donald Trump is seen at a campaign event. Trump on Saturday touted a recent endorsement from an activist who has claimed affiliation with the BLM movement. Kena Betancur/AFP via Getty Images
Black Lives Matter of Rhode Island, which Fisher has touted his involvement in, told Newsweek in a prior statement that he was “no longer associated” with the group. Fisher is also the founder of an organization in Maryland called “BLM Inc.”
“Did you see where a very respected representative of Black Lives Matter, new England?” Trump asked. “New England endorsed Trump, he said. He didn’t necessarily say the Republican Party, he said Trump because what we have done in terms of opportunity zones, and jobs and jobs, historically, if you look at the black colleges and universities, 10 year funding.”
Newsweek reached out to the national arm of Black Lives Matter via email for comment.
In a joint statement to The Providence Journal, BLM Rhode Island and the BLM Rhode Island Political Action Committee denounced Fisher as an “imposter.”
“This is a publicity stunt,” the statement read. “The right-wing continues to use and amplify fringe Black voices to create an idea of broad support for their corrupt candidates.”
It added: “Continuing to call Mark Fisher a Black Lives Matter leader is disingenuous and inappropriate. Both the founder of BLM Rhode Island and BLM Rhode Island PAC have denounced Mark and have made it clear that he is an imposter.”
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newswise — WASHINGTON – Debunking, “prebunking,” nudging and teaching digital literacy are several of the more effective ways to counter misinformation, according to a new report from the American Psychological Association.
Written by a panel of U.S. and international experts on the psychology of misinformation, the report outlines the processes that make people susceptible to misinformation and offers solutions to combat it.
The report outlines the key features of misinformation that fool people into believing and spreading it. For instance, it found that people are more likely to believe false statements that appeal to emotions such as fear and outrage. They are also more likely to believe misinformation that paints groups that they view as “others” in a negative light. And people are more likely to believe information the more it is repeated, even when it contradicts their prior knowledge. These findings suggest that it is important to stop misinformation early, the report says.
The report also describes features of social media that help misinformation spread very quickly. “Rapid publication and peer-to-peer sharing allow ordinary users to distribute information quickly to large audiences, so misinformation can be policed only after the fact (if at all),” the report says. “’Echo chambers’ bind and isolate online communities with similar views, which aids the spread of falsehoods and impedes the spread of factual corrections.”
As a result, “most online misinformation originates from a small minority of ‘superspreaders,’ but social media amplifies their reach and influence.”
There are two levels on which misinformation can be stopped, according to the report: systemic approaches, such as legislation and technology standards, and individual approaches focused on changing individual behaviors. The latter include:
fact-checking, or debunking;
prebunking, or pre-emptive debunking to prevent people from falling for misinformation in the first place;
nudges, such as asking people to consider the accuracy of information before sharing it, or rewarding people to be as accurate as possible;
and formal education or community outreach to raise people’s awareness about healthy online behavior and media use.
The report acknowledges that there is much more to learn and recommends more research funding and industry cooperation to understand behaviors related to misinformation and create tools to correct it. The panel members who wrote the report spent more than a year reviewing the scientific literature to develop their recommendations. The report was commissioned by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and funded as part of a $2 million grant to develop effective solutions to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.
While the panel’s recommendations focus on health misinformation, they can also be used for broader topics such as politics and climate change. For instance, these findings offer direct input to one of the main issues highlighted in APA’s Health Advisory on Social Media by addressing tactics that can be used to combat misinformation.
The report recommends eight steps for policymakers, scientists, media and the public to help curb the spread of misinformation and the risks it poses to health, well-being and civic life:
Avoid repeating misinformation without including a correction.
Collaborate with social media companies to understand and reduce the spread of harmful misinformation.
Use misinformation correction strategies with tools already proven to promote healthy behaviors.
Leverage trusted sources to counter misinformation and provide accurate health information.
Debunk misinformation often and repeatedly using evidence-based methods.
Prebunk misinformation to inoculate susceptible audiences by building skills and resilience from an early age.
Demand data access and transparency from social media companies for scientific research on misinformation.
Fund basic and translational research into the psychology of health misinformation, including ways to counter it.
“These psychological science findings help to explain how misinformation enters our thought processes,” the report states. “It is effortful and difficult for our brains to apply existing knowledge when encountering new information; when new claims are false but sufficiently reasonable, we can learn them as facts. Thus, everyone is susceptible to misinformation to some degree: we acquire it even when we know better.”
The American Psychological Association, in Washington, D.C., is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States. APA’s membership includes over 146,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 54 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 60 state, territorial and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance the creation, communication and application of psychological knowledge to benefit society and improve people’s lives.
Jamie Dettmer is opinion editor at POLITICO Europe.
TEL AVIV — Do Israel’s Western allies really believe that the country has the right to defend itself?
Israelis aren’t sure.
To varying degrees since the military offensive was launched against Hamas, Western allies have sought to persuade Israel to curtail the campaign, and clearly some would prefer for it to be aborted altogether.
Reeling from the shock at the sheer ISIS-like savagery of the Hamas attack on kibbutzim in southern Israel, Western allies quickly embraced Israel’s right to self-defense. But many hedged this right from the get-go with caveats — some justified — about the lack of a defining post-war end goal.
There was handwringing also about the risks of the war expanding and inflaming the whole region and worry, too, that Israel might allow its anger to push it into over-reaching.
And, of course, as the death toll in Gaza climbed, the shock of October 7 wore off for many Western allies.
France’s Emmanuel Macron was the first major Western leader to call for a cessation of hostilities, making him an unsurprising outlier. But others have not been far behind, and now they hope to stretch the four-day truce for as long as possible, which would provide further time and opportunity to pile pressure on Israel to halt the military campaign for good. Or at least scale it back considerably.
Characteristically, U.S. President Joe Biden has been inconsistent, trying to have it all ways.
Two weeks ago, when asked what the chances were for a cease-fire in Gaza, Biden was in warrior mode and dismissive. “None. No possibility,” he said.
In an op-ed in the Washington Post on November 18, he wrote: “We stand firmly with the Israeli people as they defend themselves against the murderous nihilism of Hamas.” He highlighted how he’d quickly gone to Israel after October 7 to “reaffirm to the world that the United States has Israel’s back.”
“As long as Hamas clings to its ideology of destruction, a cease-fire is not peace. To Hamas’s members, every cease-fire is time they exploit to rebuild their stockpile of rockets, reposition fighters and restart the killing by attacking innocents again. An outcome that leaves Hamas in control of Gaza would once more perpetuate its hate and deny Palestinian civilians the chance to build something better for themselves,” he wrote.
U.S. President Joe Biden speaks as Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu listens on prior to their meeting in Tel Aviv on October 18, 2023 | Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images
But less than a week later, while in Nantucket, Massachusetts for Thanksgiving, that was all forgotten and Biden struck a different chord saying “the chances are real” that the pause could open the door to a longer cease-fire.
No worries there about how Hamas exploits every cease-fire for war preparations.
Admittedly, Biden hasn’t talked yet of a permanent cease-fire and he’s linked any truces to the release of hostages. But the change in the mood music was striking and has been noted in Israel, where there’s rising anxiety that the Biden administration is making electoral calculations swayed by progressive Democrats, Arab leaders and Europeans.
The problem with that is Hamas doesn’t really want a permanent end to hostilities, Israelis argue. Just ask Ghazi Hamad, a member of Hamas’ political bureau and a man some once suggested was a moderate, they say. Speaking on Lebanese television in October he applauded the slaughter of October 7 and promised that Hamas “will do this again and again.”
“There will be a second, a third, a fourth,” he added. “Israel is a country that has no place on our land. We must remove that country, because it constitutes a security, military, and political catastrophe to the Arab and Islamic nation, and must be finished,” he declared.
Israelis question whether the United States — as well as most other Western allies — really understand that Hamas isn’t interested in political negotiations about a two-state solution. “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” means what it says. No Jewish state.
In fact, the quip doing the rounds in Tel Aviv is that “Biden is your best friend, until he isn’t.”
Others note the U.S. leader tends to go by his gut instincts when making decisions. “Does that mean we’re hostages to the fortunes of his digestive tract?” an aide to a member of Israel’s security cabinet remarked to me last week. He asked not to be named, not wanting to impact his boss’s relations with the White House.
While some Israelis fault Netanyahu for reaching too easily for Holocaust comparisons and of failing to define a day-after governance plan for Gaza when Hamas is no more, the one overwhelming message from most is that this time Hamas must be defeated comprehensively, and that a truncated military campaign would in effect be a win for Hamas.
Opinion polls bear that out with Israeli attitudes towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict more hawkish than at any time in recent memory. Only 24.5 percent of Israeli Jews favor peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority – a fall from 47.6 in favor in September.
In a survey conducted by the Israel Democracy Institute before the current pause, only 10 percent of Israeli Jews said they would support a pause in fighting to exchange hostages.
A woman holds an Israeli flag and a portrait of a hostage during a protest asking for the release of Israeli hostages in Tel Aviv on November 25, 2023 | Gil Cohen-Magen/AFP via Getty Images
Meanwhile, 44 percent said they wanted the government to negotiate for the hostages’ return without any pause and 27 percent said there should be no negotiations, only fighting. And 12 percent said hostage talks should only take place when Hamas has been defeated.
Israelis do worry that international pressure will mount to such an extent that they are compelled to stop the war on Hamas far short of the war aims. A halt now or before the goal has been accomplished would be “for Yahya Sinwar [Hamas’ leader in Gaza] a victory,” says Michael Milshtein, a former head of the Department for Palestinians Affairs in Israel’s Defense Intelligence agency.
“If this war ends with Hamas’ survival, it will further weaken the PLO-led Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and we can kiss goodbye to any serious talks in the future about a two-state solution or a political settlement with the Palestinians. Hamas isn’t interested in a political resolution – it wants to extinguish the state of Israel,” Milshtein adds. The only question will be when the next war will begin, he and others say.
“We have to end their capability of threatening Israel ever again,” Ophir Falk, Benjamin Netanyahu’s top foreign policy adviser, told me. “This can’t be just another cycle of violence. Almost everybody in Israel is fully united. The people in the streets and the government and the cabinet and everybody understands that this is a must thing for us to do,” he added.
So, what if the pressure mounts from Western allies for a cessation of hostilities? “No, that’s not an option,” Falk told me. “We are going to destroy Hamas. And asking us for a ceasefire would be like asking for a ceasefire after 9/11 or Pearl Harbor. It’s just not going to happen,” he added.
Pretty much across the board, Israelis from all walks of life are unequivocal: There should be no let-up in the campaign to uproot Hamas from Gaza. “This isn’t Bibi’s war; it is Israel’s war,” I have been told time and again the past month.
Former U.S. attorney and legal analyst Barbara McQuade said Sunday that lawyers for Donald Trump make “very misleading” arguments over the former president’s repeated attacks against judges and court staff.
Trump, the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, faces various legal troubles with trials at both the state and federal level, with a total of 91 felony charges in four separate criminal cases. Trump, meanwhile, has maintained his innocence in the cases. The former president has also been civilly sued by New York Attorney General Letitia James for $250 million. In her lawsuit, James alleges that Trump, his adult sons, and top executives at The Trump Organization, conspired to increase his net worth by billions of dollars on financial statements provided to banks and insurers to make deals and secure loans. Trump has denied any wrongdoing and has called the trial politically motivated.
Still, Trump has continued to make repeated attacks on judges and court staff, often taking to Truth Social, his social media platform, to voice his stance, which has caused him to be issued gag orders.
On Monday, a New York appeals court is expected to review whether to reinstate a gag order imposed on Trump by Judge Arthur Engoron, who is overseeing his civil fraud trial, that was temporarily lifted last week by an appellate judge who raised free speech concerns.
Former President Donald Trump is seen on November 18 in Fort Dodge, Iowa. Former U.S. attorney and legal analyst Barbara McQuade said Sunday that lawyers for Trump make “very misleading” arguments over the former president’s repeated attacks against judges and court staff. Jim Vondruska/Getty Images
In an interview with MSNBC host Katie Phang on Sunday, McQuade spoke about Trump’s repeated attacks, adding that the former president’s lawyers’ arguments over the gag orders have looked at cases outside of the context of court, a move she describes is “very misleading. “
“One of the things that the [Trump] lawyers have done, that is very misleading here, is to look at cases outside of the context of court, of opinion criminal cases. You know, prior restraints are frowned upon of course. Anything that limits core political speech is antithetical to the First Amendment,” McQuade said.
She added that those outside cases that Trump’s lawyers refer to in their arguments are different, stating that we are in the world of a trial and “those rules are different.”
“That’s not the world that we are in. We are in the world of a trial. And so inside a trial to protect the parties, to protect court staff and to protect the fair administration of justice, those rules are different. And so I hope that the court sees the light and understand the very threat on the one hand versus the restriction on the other,” she said.
Although it is not clear which outside cases McQuade is referring to, Trump and his lawyers have continued to argue that any gag order against a presidential candidate is a violation of his First Amendment rights.
Newsweek has reached out to Trump and his lawyers via email for comment.
The government’s court filings pointed the appeals court to one section in particular, in which an employee at the New York State Unified Court System details the “hundreds of threatening and harassing voicemail messages” which had been sent to Engoron as well as his law clerk Allison Greenfield. Engoron fined Trump twice in October for violating his gag order after he failed to remove a Truth Social post targeting Greenfield more than two weeks after the judge ordered it be deleted, and then a second time after the former president described Greenfield as a “very partisan” individual to reporters outside the courtroom.
McQuade is the latest in a growing list of those who have noted Trump’s repeated attacks and have called for the court to take a more serious approach.
“I think it would be irresponsible for one jurisdiction to decline to pay attention to the potentially witness threatening conduct by the same pretrial defendant in another jurisdiction and we have seen some cross pollination between and among the judges. I can only wonder if at some point Donald Trump’s luck will run out and the judges will say enough, we are going to impose these gag orders, we are going to keep them in place,” Kirschner, a staunch Trump critic, said.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Former President Donald Trump called evangelical leader Bob Vander Plaats a “scammer” on Saturday after he announced his endorsement of Ron DeSantis, noting payments the leader had received from the Florida governor’s 2024 presidential campaign and its associates.
Vander Plaats is an influential evangelical leader among Republican voters in Iowa, the first state to hold a race in the GOP primary cycle and a key target for aspiring candidates. On Tuesday, Vander Plaats became the latest notable Iowa public figure to endorse DeSantis for president over Trump, though the impact of the decision has been debated.
While DeSantis has long been Trump’s closest rival in the 2024 race for the GOP nomination, the former president has regularly secured 50 percent support in national polls, while DeSantis has lingered in the low double-digits.
In August, Reuters reported on the lengths DeSantis and his associates went in attempting to secure Vander Plaats’s endorsement, finding that the campaign, a political action committee (PAC) affiliated with it, and a nonprofit backing the governor’s candidacy had collectively donated $95,000 to the Family Leader Foundation, a nonprofit organization Vander Plaats operates. For the money, DeSantis secured “three pages of advertisements in a booklet distributed at the July [presidential candidate] forum attended by 2,000 Christian conservatives,” Reuters noted.
Iowa evangelical leader Bob Vander Plaats is seen. Donald Trump on Saturday decried Vander Plaats as a “scammer” after he endorsed Ron DeSantis for president in 2024. Jim Vondruska/Getty Images
Following the announcement of Vander Plaats’ endorsement of DeSantis, Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, on Saturday to decry the evangelical leader as a “scammer” backing “a candidate who is going nowhere.”
“Bob Vander Plaats, the former High School Accountant from Iowa, will do anything to win, something which he hasn’t done in many years,” Trump wrote in the post. “He’s more known for scamming Candidates than he is for Victory, but now he’s going around using Disinformation from the Champions of that Art, the Democrats. I don’t believe anything Bob Vander Plaats says. Anyone who would take $95,000, and then endorse a Candidate who is going nowhere, is not what Elections are all about!”
During a recent Fox News interview, Vander Plaats confirmed the donations, but said his endorsement “has never been and never will be for sale.” He added that he supported DeSantis because he thought he would win the election and had the requisite experience for the role.
In an X post on Tuesday, DeSantis thanked Vander Plaats for his endorsement.
“As I’ve made my way through 98 of Iowa’s 99 counties, Iowans have shared what a critical role @bobvanderplaats plays in engaging Iowa’s faith community in the key battles that matter. His support tells Iowans they can trust me to fight and win for them,” he wrote.
Newsweek reached out to the Family Leader Foundation and the DeSantis campaign via email for comment.
Speaking with The Des Moines Register after endorsing DeSantis, Vander Plaats acknowledged that such support can only go so far in terms of influencing voters, but nonetheless expressed optimism. DeSantis has also received the endorsement of the state’s Republican governor, Kim Reynolds.
“Endorsements only go so far,” he said. “I hope I can influence others, but there’s no guarantee on that. But I do believe, with Gov. Reynolds, with my endorsement, and with some of the others that I’ve talked about—all the legislators and county chairs that he has—I think he’s tailor-made to win Iowa.”
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Carroll, a longtime journalist and one-time columnist for Elle, has over the years accused Trump of sexually assaulting her in a New York City department store changing room in the mid-1990s. She recently filed multiple civil defamation lawsuits against the former president after he said her stories about him were not true.
In May, a New York City jury ruled that Trump had sexually assaulted Carroll and was civilly liable for defamation against her to the tune of $5 million in damages, but it rejected her allegation of rape. Despite this ruling, Trump has continued to assert that he did not assault or abuse Carroll and has at times said he has no idea who she is.
The jury’s ruling came in a suit filed in 2022, after Trump had left the White House. Carroll had also filed a civil defamation suit pertaining to statements he made in June 2019, while he was still president.
In early September, federal Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled that Trump’s 2019 comments against Carroll were defamatory, reasoning that their “substantive content” was the same as the comments at the heart of the 2022 suit, which had already been litigated. A damages trial is now set for January.
Donald Trump arrives on August 3 at Virginia’s Reagan National Airport following an arraignment in a Washington, D.C., court. In a separate case, the former president’s hopes of mounting a defense against writer E. Jean Carroll in a damages trial could be in jeopardy after a recent filing by her defense team. Getty Images/Tasos Katopodis
On Monday, Carroll’s legal team filed a motion asking Kaplan to bar Trump’s defense team from making any claims, or submitting any evidence, in the trial that reflect his allegations that he did not abuse her, which they argue is a settled matter since the jury ruling in May. Further evidence pertaining to whether or not the abuse happened, her lawyers argue, is irrelevant to the scope of the coming trial.
“The damages issues in this case relate to Trump’s June 2019 defamatory statements, not whether there is physical evidence that serves as further proof that Trump sexually assaulted Carroll,” the filing reads. “While it is Trump’s right to submit to questioning, he does not have the right to say whatever he pleases.”
The briefing went on to suggest which arguments Trump and his team should be barred from making, given prior legal results. The briefing asked that they not be allowed to “claim that he did not sexually assault Carroll; argue that he was telling the truth in his statements about her; suggest that Carroll fabricated her account due to a political agenda, financial interests, or mental illness; or offer any other testimony that would be inconsistent with the Court’s collateral estoppel decision determining that Trump, with actual malice, lied about sexually assaulting Carroll.”
Newsweek reached out to Trump’s office by email for comment.
David Aronberg, a legal expert and state attorney in Florida, told Newsweek that it is likely Kaplan will grant Carroll’s request, which will be highly detrimental to Trump’s chances of a favorable outcome in the case.
“I think the judge will likely grant E. Jean Carroll‘s motion to prevent Trump from re-litigating issues that were already decided in the previous trial,” Aronberg said.
“In legal terms, it’s called ‘collateral estoppel,’ which means that Trump has already been found to have lied about sexually assaulting Carroll and that decision carries over into this next trial,” he said. “If Carroll wins her motion, as I expect she will, it means that Trump’s chances of winning at trial are reduced to slim and none.”
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
President Joe Biden‘s reelection campaign called Nikki Haley, a 2024 Republican presidential candidate who is rising in popularity in polling, a “MAGA extremist” on Friday for her stance on abortion.
Haley, who served as South Carolina governor from 2011 to 2017, has portrayed herself as one of the more moderate GOP candidates in the race, particularly with her view on abortion. While Haley describes herself as “unapologetically pro-life,” she has urged Americans to stop “demonizing” the medical procedure and has pushed for adoption and access to contraception.
In June 2022, the Supreme Court‘s decision on Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade in which it ruled that there is no constitutional right to an abortion, returning the issue to the state level.
During a forum of conservative Christians in Iowa on Friday, Haley was asked if she would sign a “heartbeat bill” if she was still governor of South Carolina. Haley said: “Yes, whatever the people decide.” So-called heartbeat bills ban abortions at around six weeks, or the point at which cardiac activity—incorrectly known as the fetal “heartbeat”—can be detected.
Nikki Haley speaks during the Republican presidential primary debate on November 8 in Miami. President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign called Haley, a 2024 Republican presidential candidate who is rising in popularity in polling, a “MAGA extremist” on Friday for her stance on abortion. Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Haley added: “This was put in the states—that’s where it should be. Everyone can give their voice to it.” In 2016 when she was governor, Haley signed a ban on abortion in South Carolina at 20 weeks unless the mother’s life is at risk.
Biden’s campaign team rejected the idea of Haley as a “moderate” choice, given her history on anti-abortion legislation.
“Nikki Haley is no moderate – she’s an anti-abortion MAGA extremist who wants to rip away women’s freedoms just like she did when she was South Carolina governor,” Biden-Harris 2024 rapid response director Ammar Moussa wrote in a statement on X, formerly Twitter, on Friday. “Now Haley is promising to bring that same fear, anxiety, and dread she forced on South Carolina women to every woman in the country.”
Moussa continued: “Whether it’s Donald Trump, Nikki Haley, or any other MAGA extremist – the entire field is running on a dangerous anti-freedom agenda that the American people have made clear they do not want.”
Newsweek reached out to Haley’s team via email for comment and Moussa via X direct message for comment.
“I’ve always said that he was the right president at the right time and I agree with a lot of his policies,” Haley said on Fox News Sunday last week. “The problem is drama and chaos follows him, whether fairly or not. It is constantly following him and Americans feel it.”
What the Polls Show
According to new polling data, Haley, who also served as the former president’s U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has surged to second place on the Republican primary ballot in New Hampshire as Trump continues his strong lead.
In an Emerson College Polling/WHDH poll conducted between November 10 and 13, with a sample size of 917 registered New Hampshire voters, Haley received 18 percent of voter support. This is an increase from the 4 percent she received in August. Meanwhile, Trump received 49 percent of voter support in the poll, which is consistent with his numbers from August. The poll’s margin of error was 3.3 percentage points.
In addition, a New York Times/Siena College survey from earlier this month found Haley outperforming Trump in head-to-head matchups with Biden in six key swing states—Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Pop megastar Taylor Swift said she’s now “never beating the sorcery allegations,” while sharing an incredible video of an airplane darting across the sky while perfectly accompanying her lyrics during a concert in Argentina.
The 12-time Grammy Award winner has been fending off sorcery and witchcraft rumors for the past several weeks as she travels the world on her sixth concert tour. While critics have slammed the singer, accusing her of promoting witchcraft, fans have shared viral TikTok clips describing Swift as looking like she’s doing a spell with her coven during performances of the song “Willow.”
The superstar appeared to respond to the sorcery allegations in a post on X, formerly Twitter, where Swift shared a jaw-dropping video from her Saturday Eras Tour stop in Buenos Aires, Argentina. In the 25-second clip, Swift is seen singing “Labyrinth” off her 2022 album, Midnights.
In a serendipitous moment, as Swift sings the lyrics, “I thought the plane was going down/How’d you turn it right around,” the camera pans to the sky right as an airplane soars directly above the venue.
Newsweek reached out via email and social media to Swift’s representatives for comment Monday night.
Pop icon Taylor Swift performs during “Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour” in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Swift, in a social media post Monday, appeared to respond to witchcraft accusations against her. Marcelo Endelli/TAS23/Getty Images for TAS Rights Management
Swift, 33, recently came under fire over an October Instagram post, in which the singer thanked her fans for turning out in droves to see her Eras tour movie.
“I’ve been watching videos of you guys in the theaters dancing and prancing and recreating choreography, creating inside jokes, casting spells, getting engaged, and just generally creating the exact type of joyful chaos we’re known for,” Swift said in the post.
The “casting spells” highlight enraged some social media users, including a woman who called herself an ex-fan after taking issue with the caption.
Kandiss Taylor, a former Republican Georgia gubernatorial candidate, blasted Swift for the comment in a lengthy post on X, voicing her dissent.
“Did you really just praise your fans for making videos with your music and ‘casting spells’ @taylorswift13?” the ex-MAGA hopeful asked the singer on X. “What is wrong with you? I have heard from others that attended this last tour that you had some satanic nods in your show. I didn’t want to believe it.”
The Republican accused Swift of “celebrating witchcraft.”
“You’re influencing innocent minds to be enticed with the dark side of spirituality,” she said.
While it appears that Swift did not respond directly to Taylor’s criticisms or accusations of witchcraft on X, the Georgia mother’s post ignited a heated debated with thousands of responses.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.